Tucker Carlson film on George Soros is his latest antisemitic dog-whistle

submitted by ShalomEveryoneCommunist Party from theguardian.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

It's all a subjective balancing act to maintain productive debate. Schmidt combined his very very mild insult with a good factual based argument. It's a mile away from someone saying "/u/socks you are a shill piece of shit"

[–]AXXA 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

It's not good for users or moderators for rules to be subjective. That puts moderators in a position to be required to judge the arguments to see if they're good or not. That forces the moderator to take a side in the argument instead of remaining impartial.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I agree but m7 wants it this way. If you spell things out too explicitly, people will take advantage and turn you into a lawyer, constantly adding new things to the not-allowed list.

If you want to consider all name-calling against the rules, we can do that. I'm having a hard time differentiating name calling from ad hominem myself.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

1) Make few hard rules.
2) Make many soft guides.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Similarly, I'm down to not enforce name calling, and to just enforce calls to violence. Either one will piss off half the site. Ugh being admin sucks.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Quality over quantity.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(Or - focus on the bottom three rows of the PoD, and don't worry much about the rest. Everything above the bottom 3 (names, ad h., violence) is subjective and results in mod abuse. For example, starting one's argument by calling someone a moron is really obvious name calling and /u/AXXA appropriately mentioned it. If the comment is called moronic, that's not a problem, because every user makes a moronic comment from time to time. It's not really a personal insult.)

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's not good for users or moderators for rules to be subjective.

1,000,000% agreed.

That puts moderators in a position to be required to judge the arguments to see if they're good or not.

If only we had a forum where the community could vote on things like this.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

someone saying "/u/socks you are a shill piece of shit"

So you're saying that we cannot say "/u/socks you are a shill piece of shit"?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

That's correct. No one should be saying "/u/socks is a shill piece of shit".

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's correct. No one should be saying "/u/socks is a shill piece of shit".

Is it wrong that I really really really want to say, "/u/socks is a shill piece of shit"?